Symptomatic treatment of pollen-related allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: randomized controlled trial

Is intralymphatic immunotherapy effective and safe for allergic rhinitis?: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As there is much controversy in using intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) as a therapeutic means for allergic rhinitis (AR), its efficacy and safety for AR were investigated based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were employed to retrieve relevant randomized control studies on ILIT for AR. The search deadline was September 15, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on the data of the included literature using Stata 15.0.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized control studies were included involving a total of 406 patients. Meta-analysis results revealed that ILIT improved patients' quality of life [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (-1.00, -0.050)], and reduced the adverse events of nasal symptoms [risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI = (0.06, 0.45)] as compared to control, whereas no significant difference was discovered in symptom score [SMD = 0.14, 95% CI = (-0.34, 0.62)], IgE [SMD = 0.93, 95% CI = (-0.44, 2.30)], medication scores [SMD = 1.37, 95% CI = (-0.45, 3.18)], comprehensive symptom and medication scores [SMD = 0.93, 95% CI = (-0.62, 2.47)], nasal symptoms [RR = 0.16, 95% CI = (0.06, 0.45)], and lymphadenectasis [RR = 2.27, 95% CI = (0.37, 6.73)] versus control.

CONCLUSION

After the application of the ILIT strategy against AR, the quality of life of patients was improved and the incidence of adverse events associated with nasal symptoms was reduced, but the conclusion needed further verification with more high-quality research.

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Pädiatrische Rhinologie

The following review article highlights key topics in pediatric rhinology that are currently the focus in research and at conferences as well as in the interdisciplinary discussion between otorhinolaryngologists and pediatricians. In particular, congenital malformations such as choanal atresia or nasal dermoid cysts are discussed, followed by statements on the current procedures for sinogenic orbital complications as well as on the diagnosis and therapy of chronic rhinosinusitis in children. Furthermore, updates on the role of the ENT specialist in the care for children with cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia are provided.

Global expert views on the diagnosis, classification and pharmacotherapy of allergic rhinitis in clinical practice using a modified Delphi panel technique

Background

Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) varies considerably despite the availability of treatment guidelines.

Objectives

We aimed to carry out a two-part modified Delphi panel study to elucidate global expert management of AR in real life.

Methods

The modified Delphi panel study was composed of two ten-minute online questionnaires sent to global AR experts, aiming to identify areas of consensus (defined as >75% respondent agreement) on aspects of their real-world daily practice related to AR diagnosis, classification, and pharmacotherapy. A workshop discussion with respondents held after the first-round questionnaire informed the development of the second-round questionnaire.

Results

Eighteen experts (from 7 countries across 3 continents) completed both questionnaires in September-October 2021 and January 2022, respectively. The majority of respondents agreed that diagnosis of AR is best confirmed using a mixture of observation and testing (n = 15) and collaborating with colleagues across other specialties (n = 14). Experts agreed that severity (n = 18), upper/lower respiratory tract involvement (n = 15) and symptom frequency (n = 14) are important factors when classifying AR, however consensus was not reached on which classification tool should be used. Although there were mixed opinions on the preferred pharmacotherapy treatment in the presented case studies, respondents largely agreed on which treatments require less monitoring (intranasal corticosteroid therapies [INCS]) and when treatments should be stepped down (≤3 months). Although opinions varied across respondents, some respondents considered as-needed INCS treatment and surgery to be viable treatment options.

Conclusion

We identified clear differences between real-world practice and treatment guidelines related to the management of AR. Furthermore, we recognized differences among physicians concerning their clinical practice in the pharmacological treatment of AR. These findings highlight the need for greater research into the management of AR and further indicate there is still a major gap between treatment guidelines and daily practice, even among specialists, suggesting a need for local guideline adaptation and implementation plans.

Clinical response to varying pollen exposure in allergic rhinitis in children in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10-15% of children. Symptoms in seasonal AR are influenced by pollen exposure. Pollen counts vary throughout the pollen season and therefore, symptom severity fluctuates. This study investigates the correlation between pollen concentration and symptom load in children with AR in The Netherlands.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was performed in a study determining the most effective treatment for children with seasonal AR. Symptoms were measured during three months in 2013 and 2014 using a daily symptom diary. The pollen concentration was measured with a Hirst type volumetric spore trap sampler. A correlation coefficient was calculated for the correlation between the pollen concentration and the mean daily symptom score. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethical review committee of the Erasmus MC and is incorporated in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (EUCTR2012-001,591-11-NL).

RESULTS

In 2014, the correlation coefficient for birch pollen concentration and symptom score was 0.423 (p = 0.000). The correlation coefficient for grass pollen concentration and symptom score was 0.413 (p = 0.000) and 0.655 (p = 0.000) in 2013 and 2014, respectively. A delayed correlation between the birch pollen concentration and the symptom scores was seen up to two days after the pollen measurement (0.151, p = 0.031). For grass pollen this effect lasted up to three days after the pollen measurement (0.194, p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

We found comparable correlations between symptom score and pollen concentration as found by EAACI. Birch and grass pollen have an elongated influence on symptom score of several days. This implies patients need to continue on demand medication longer after a measured pollen peak.

The Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Approach of Value-Added Medicines: As-Needed Treatment in Allergic Rhinitis

Drug repurposing is a major field of value-added medicine. It involves investigating and evaluating existing drugs for new therapeutic purposes that address unmet healthcare needs. Several unmet needs in allergic rhinitis could be improved by drug repurposing. This could be game-changing for disease management. Current medications for allergic rhinitis are centered on continuous long-term treatment, and medication registration is based on randomized controlled trials carried out for a minimum of 14 days with adherence of 70% or greater. A new way of treating allergic rhinitis is to propose as-needed treatment depending on symptoms, rather than classical continuous treatment. This rostrum will discuss existing clinical trials on as-needed treatment for allergic rhinitis and real-world data obtained by the mobile health app MASK-air, which focuses on digitally-enabled, patient-centered care pathways.

A Trial of Intranasal Corticosteroids to Treat Childhood OSA Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are frequently used to treat OSA syndrome (OSAS) in children. However, their efficacy has not been rigorously tested.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do INCS result in improved OSAS symptoms, polysomnography findings, behavior, and quality of life compared with placebo?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, children with OSAS aged 5 to 12 years (N = 134) were randomized 2:1 to receive 3 months of INCS or placebo. Children in the INCS arm were then re-randomized to receive 9 months of INCS or placebo. Polysomnography, symptoms, and neurobehavioral findings were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in obstructive apnea hypopnea index (OAHI) at 3 months, available for 122 children. The secondary outcome was OAHI change at 12 months, available for 70 children.

RESULTS

Median (interquartile range) age and OAHI at baseline for the entire group were 7.9 (6.3 to 9.9) years and 5.8 (3.6 to 9.7) events per hour. OAHI changes at 3 months (-1.72 [-3.91 to 1.92] events per hour) and 12 months (-1.2 [-4.22 to 1.71] events per hour) were not different between the two groups (P = not significant). OSAS symptoms and neurobehavioral results did not differ between the INCS and placebo groups at 3 and 12 months. The 38 children who received INCS for 12 months reported a significant OAHI decrease from 7.2 (3.62 to 9.88) events per hour to 3.7 (1.56 to 6.4) events per hour (P = .039).

INTERPRETATION

In children with OSAS, treatment with INCS did not result in significant polysomnography, neurobehavioral, or symptom changes at 3 and 12 months of treatment. Twelve months of INCS treatment resulted in a statistically significant but not clinically relevant OAHI reduction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02180672; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As-needed intranasal corticosteroid spray (INCS) is commonly used by patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who have suboptimal symptom control. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of as-needed INCS for treating AR.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials studying the effects of as-needed INCS compared to regular INCS, as-needed antihistamine, or placebo were performed. Primary outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and disease-specific quality of life (DSQoL).

RESULTS

Eight studies (882 participants) met the criteria. Regular use of INCS showed greater improvements than as-needed INCS in TNSS, DSQoL, nasal peak inspiratory flow, sneezing, and nasal congestion scores with small effect sizes. There were no differences between regular and as-needed INCS usage for ocular symptoms, symptom-free days, nasal itching, and rhinorrhea scores. As-needed INCS was superior to as-needed antihistamine and placebo with medium effect sizes. There were no differences in risk of adverse events between the groups in all three comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular use of INCS improved total nasal symptoms score and DSQoL better than as-needed INCS. However, as-needed INCS improved TNSS better than as-needed antihistamine and placebo. The effects of as-needed INCS were closer to regular INCS usage than to placebo or as-needed AH usage.

No added value of duloxetine for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomised trial

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost‐effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives.

Methods

We conducted an open‐label, cluster‐randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0–20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data.

Results

In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference –0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference –0.26 [95% CI –1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference –0.32 [95% CI –2.32, 1.67]).

Conclusion

We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results.

Antihistamines in the Management of Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of newer antihistamines (AHs) versus other active treatments has not been assessed in pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through August 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing newer with older AHs, corticosteroids, or montelukast were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 10,656 citations, 16 RCTs (N = 1653) with a duration from 10 days to 3 months were included. When compared with older-generation AHs, the administration of newer AHs did not confer significant benefit and appeared less effective compared with intranasal corticosteroids. However, newer AHs were more potent in achieving symptom control compared with montelukast. Data regarding quality of life were generally missing. The incidence of adverse events was low in all treatment groups. The included RCTs were characterized by moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer AHs are effective in symptom control and well tolerated in the pediatric population. However, inadequate reporting, variation in outcome measures, and a paucity of sufficient randomized comparisons precluded us from quantifying the relative efficacy of newer AHs compared with other treatment options.

Adherence to treatment in allergic rhinitis using mobile technology. The MASK Study

BACKGROUND

Mobile technology may help to better understand the adherence to treatment. MASK-rhinitis (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis) is a patient-centred ICT system. A mobile phone app (the Allergy Diary) central to MASK is available in 22 countries.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adherence to treatment in allergic rhinitis patients using the Allergy Diary App.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional study was carried out on all users who filled in the Allergy Diary from 1 January 2016 to 1 August 2017. Secondary adherence was assessed by using the modified Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and the Proportion of days covered (PDC) approach.

RESULTS

A total of 12 143 users were registered. A total of 6 949 users reported at least one VAS data recording. Among them, 1 887 users reported ≥7 VAS data. About 1 195 subjects were included in the analysis of adherence. One hundred and thirty-six (11.28%) users were adherent (MPR ≥70% and PDC ≤1.25), 51 (4.23%) were partly adherent (MPR ≥70% and PDC = 1.50) and 176 (14.60%) were switchers. On the other hand, 832 (69.05%) users were non-adherent to medications (MPR <70%). Of those, the largest group was non-adherent to medications and the time interval was increased in 442 (36.68%) users.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Adherence to treatment is low. The relative efficacy of continuous vs on-demand treatment for allergic rhinitis symptoms is still a matter of debate. This study shows an approach for measuring retrospective adherence based on a mobile app. This also represents a novel approach for analysing medication-taking behaviour in a real-world setting.

Recent developments and highlights in rhinitis and allergen immunotherapy

This review paper aims to provide an overview of recent developments in the field of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, as well as allergen immunotherapy. Recent advances in phenotyping and endotyping various forms of rhinitis have brought us one step closer towards tailoring treatment more appropriately for a given patient. Updates on local allergic rhinitis are also covered. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an area of significant interest, with multiple original papers and recent position papers and guidelines published. Evidence related to the application of AIT in seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (AR), local allergic rhinitis and novel and expanded applications is discussed in the publication.

Highlights and recent developments in airway diseases in EAACI journals (2017)

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) owns three journals: Allergy, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and Clinical and Translational Allergy. One of the major goals of EAACI is to support health promotion in which prevention of allergy and asthma plays a critical role and to disseminate the knowledge of allergy to all stakeholders including the EAACI junior members. There was substantial progress in 2017 in the identification of basic mechanisms of allergic and respiratory disease and the translation of these mechanisms into clinics. Better understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms, efforts for the development of biomarkers for disease prediction, novel prevention and intervention studies, elucidation of mechanisms of multimorbidies, entrance of new drugs in the clinics as well as recently completed phase three clinical studies and publication of a large number of allergen immunotherapy studies and metaanalyses have been the highlights of the last year.

Rapid onset of action and reduced nasal hyperreactivity: new targets in allergic rhinitis management

Background

This article summarizes a EUFOREA symposium, presented during the European Rhinology Research Forum in Brussels (9–10 November 2017; https://www.rhinologyresearch.eu/) which focused on novel pathways and therapeutic approaches in allergic rhinitis (AR).

Main body

AR remains under-diagnosed, under-estimated and under-treated. A key component in understanding the AR landscape has been the realization of a significant mismatch between how physicians instruct AR patients to manage their disease and what AR patients actually do in real life. Data from the Allergy Diary (developed by MACVIA ARIA) showed that AR patients take their medication prn, rapidly switch treatments, often experience poor control, use multiple therapies and stop treatment when symptoms are controlled. Better control of AR may be achievable by using an AR treatment which has a rapid onset of action and which effectively targets breakthrough symptoms. Indeed, AR patients report complete symptom relief, lack of breakthrough symptoms, rapid onset of action, safety and use on an ‘as needed’ basis as key targets for new nasal sprays. MP-AzeFlu comprises intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a novel formulation delivered in a single device. It is the first AR treatment to break the 5 min onset of action threshold and provides clinically relevant symptom relief in 15 min, much faster than that noted for FP + oral loratadine. MP-AzeFlu also significantly reduces nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR) which may be responsible for the breakthrough symptoms frequently reported by AR patients. Mechanisms underlying MP-AzeFlu’s effect include inhibition of mast cell degranulation, stabilization of the mucosal barrier, synergistic inhibition of inflammatory cell recruitment and a unique desensitization of sensory neurons expressing the transient receptor potential A1 and V1 channels.

Conclusion

With the most rapid onset of action and onset of clinically-relevant effect of any AR medication currently available, and proven efficacy in the treatment of NHR, MP-AzeFlu is an AR treatment which provides what patients want, and fits how patients manage their AR in real life.